Blue states smarter than red states?

[penumbrage]

Originally Posted by 66Scorpio

... has involved a man and a woman ...

Perhaps we just have a simple difference of definition here. Do you define a man as a human with a penis and a woman as a human with a vagina or do you define a man as a genetic XY male and a woman as a genetic XX female regardless of whether Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia or any of the dozens of other gender scrambling medical disorders have robbed them of the genitalia appropriate to their sex?

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by 66Scorpio

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Marriage.aspx

Seems a little biased to cite a legal dictionary, given that it is just stating the current legal defintion, not historical definitions from all society's throughout time.

Note your very cite says

The law can and has been changed by some governments (eg. Canada) exercising their jurisdiction over this area of family law, to allow marriage between two persons of the same sex.

So there.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Zaklog

Why on earth would I want that? . . . Ah, because Hollywood and liberal academics tell me I should. They're probably right. It's not like these people could ever steer us wrong. It's not like they advocate pedophilia (The History Boys), a one-child policy which leads to forced abortions (Harry's Law), infanticide, or bestiality (Peter Singer). Hmmm, wait a minute, maybe I shouldn't listen to them.

Poisoning the well, slippery slope, ad hominem... you going for some kind fallacy record here?

My point, which you seem to have missed in your rush to condemn all that is left and liberal, was that given that we have children being raised by homosexual couples (and we do, now and into the future), shouldn't family-values conservatives who are concerned for the welfare of children want them being raised in a stable family by two parents who are married to each other?

Because from here, it looks like you're a hypocrite who only wants kids in a stable family if the family looks the way you think it should look.


Powers &8^]

[leejacky]

Originally Posted by constanze

Link to column

Isn't part of intelligence the ability to accept and evaluate facts contrary to belief? And don't authoritarian personalities, who strongly self-identify as Republicans / conservatives, in many studies have much more problems accepting contradictory facts than people who identify as Democrats or Liberals?

Last report I found on this matter:

that was pathetic and I think either blue or red are no different on the brain

[Beware of Doug]

The simplest answer is the best, but only if many answers are considered and compared. Occam's Razor is not meant for slashing wildly about.

[ABraut]

Originally Posted by constanze

And don't authoritarian personalities, who strongly self-identify as Republicans / conservatives, in many studies have much more problems accepting contradictory facts than people who identify as Democrats or Liberals?

This is something that's been bothering me for quite some time. Why is it that people who insist on heavy economic regulation, say that people who insist on little or no regulation are "authoritarian"? Why is it that people who insist on heavy government involvement in social issues e.g. hate crime laws, affirmative action, fanatical political correctness, etc. say that people who want to impose other morality laws e.g. abortion restrictions, traditional marriage, school prayer, etc. are more authoritarian than they are?

Democrats are far more authoritarian in economic matters than Republicans. In social issues, there would be a tie, with the only difference being their respective goals. (you will do this v you won't do that) There is a tie-breaker, however. You'll find more libertarian (in the general anti-authoritarian/classic liberalism sense) minded Republicans than Democrats, mostly for economic reasons.

Between the vast difference on the economic side and the slight difference on the social side, the Democratic party is the more authoritarian party.

[Beware of Doug]

You're equating strong government with strongman govenrment. Big mistake. (Or maybe it's not a mistake, just rhetorical thimblerigging.)

A government can be strong and egalitarian if steps are taken so that authority rests with the collective. True authoritarianism exists when it rests only with the leader.

[ABraut]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

A government can be strong and egalitarian if steps are taken so that authority rests with the collective. True authoritarianism exists when it rests only with the leader.

If that's your argument, neither party is authoritarian.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by ABraut

Why is it that people who insist on heavy government involvement in social issues e.g. hate crime laws, affirmative action, fanatical political correctness, etc. say that people who want to impose other morality laws e.g. abortion restrictions, traditional marriage, school prayer, etc. are more authoritarian than they are?

The former are restrictions that improve social mobility or protect minority rights. The latter are restrictions that impose on personal sovereignty.

If you can't see the difference, you might be a Republican!


Powers &8^]

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by ABraut

If that's your argument, neither party is authoritarian.

The parties themselves, probably not (although the GOP's party discipline is much vaunted).

The effect of their ideologies is another thing.

[ABraut]

Originally Posted by Powers

The former are restrictions that improve social mobility or protect minority rights. The latter are restrictions that impose on personal sovereignty.

If you can't see the difference, you might be a Republican!

The only difference is motive. Both motives are supposedly "for the greater good", but you support infringing on personal sovereignty for one, but not the other. I don't support either. You assume I'm a Republican because I see the similarities you refuse to acknowledge, for the same reason Republicans refuse to acknowledge them. You both want to change human behavior through government mandate/prohibition and neither can understand why people don't wan't your "protection." It's two sides of the same coin.

The same goes for:

The effect of their ideologies is another thing.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by ABraut

The only difference is motive. Both motives are supposedly "for the greater good", but you support infringing on personal sovereignty for one, but not the other. I don't support either. You assume I'm a Republican because I see the similarities you refuse to acknowledge, for the same reason Republicans refuse to acknowledge them. You both want to change human behavior through government mandate/prohibition and neither can understand why people don't wan't your "protection." It's two sides of the same coin.

Utter nonsense. Let us look at your six examples:

• Hate crime laws - Intended to protect the victims of actions that serve to intimidate an entire class of people.
• Affirmative action - Intended to protect the victims of historical discrimination and to compensate for the long-term effects of same
• Fanatical political correctness - Well, I don't think that really counts as a Democratic platform plank, and it's a rather biased phrasing you've chosen here.
• Abortion restrictions - A tough one, as this could be seen as protecting innocent fetuses from unnecessary death. I'll concede it.
• Traditional marriage - A completely unnecessary restriction. There's no "protecting" involved in prohibiting gay marriage; no straight marriage is in any way affected by allowing gay marriage.
• School prayer - Again, nothing is being protected by laws forcing school prayer (except maybe Christian privilege), and it's blatantly against the First Amendment in any case.

In my response to you, I was mainly focusing on the first and second cases compared to the fifth and sixth. You may find the first and second cases misguided; you may find them inappropriate. And that's fine. But surely you must acknowledge that they come from a desire not to impose authority, but to redress the effects of authority being imposed? (Even the third is surely motivated similarly, to the extent it exists.)

The fifth and sixth cases, on the other hand, are attempts more akin to what the first and second are attempting to redress. They are attempts to impose one's own morality on the rest of society -- the very definition of authoritarianism.

To equate the attempt to compensate for and prohibit future offenses against personal liberty, to actual offenses against personal liberty is disingenuous at best.


Powers &8^]

[ABraut]

• Hate crime laws - Imposing your morality on others by criminalizing thoughts you don't like and introducing sentencing phase arguments into the guilt/innocence phase of a trial.
• Affirmative action - Imposing your morality on others by mandatory racial preferencing.
• Fanatical political correctness - (as opposed to reasonable requests for politeness) Imposing your morality on others by belittling the very people you're trying to protect based on the assumption they cannot deal with things people say. (this is more about Democrat supporters than the party)

Why is it only "imposing your morality on others" when you disagree with the morality being imposed?
Compensating for previous offenses against personal liberty, with more offenses against personal liberty is still an offense against personal liberty. I know I know "It's only wrong when they do it, because they are evil and I am good." They say the same about what you want.

[Beware of Doug]

The thing is, people in favor of small government tend to push for either a) total laissez-faire, in a minority of cases, or b) most often a vision of personal liberty that is shaped, consciously or not, by White Protestant notions of a God-given moral code.

[ABraut]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

The thing is, people in favor of small government tend to push for either a) total laissez-faire, in a minority of cases, or b) most often a vision of personal liberty that is shaped, consciously or not, by White Protestant notions of a God-given moral code.

Even if that's true, it doesn't change the fact that many so-called liberals want to use government power to force their morality on others. It's the same thing, but for different reasons.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by ABraut

Compensating for previous offenses against personal liberty, with more offenses against personal liberty is still an offense against personal liberty. I know I know "It's only wrong when they do it, because they are evil and I am good." They say the same about what you want.

You're blinded by your own biases against both sides.

Obviously the two sides can disagree. All I'm saying is that it's neither inconsistent nor hypocritical to favor limitations on personal liberty that benefit the underprivileged, while opposing limitations on personal liberty that are only "for your own good".


Powers &8^]

[ABraut]

Originally Posted by Powers

All I'm saying is that it's neither inconsistent nor hypocritical to favor limitations on personal liberty that benefit the underprivileged, while opposing limitations on personal liberty that are only "for your own good".

That's just your way of rationalizing your belief that it's OK to impose morality on others, so long as it's your morality being imposed. I'm sure you completely believe that.

[ABraut]

What's hypocritical, is to say that it's only a restriction on personal liberty when you disagree with the purpose of the restriction on personal liberty.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by ABraut

What's hypocritical, is to say that it's only a restriction on personal liberty when you disagree with the purpose of the restriction on personal liberty.

No, you're still imposing your preferred reading on what I'm writing.

Let's review. You said:

Originally Posted by ABraut

Why is it that people who insist on heavy government involvement in social issues e.g. hate crime laws, affirmative action, fanatical political correctness, etc. say that people who want to impose other morality laws e.g. abortion restrictions, traditional marriage, school prayer, etc. are more authoritarian than they are?

That's the original question I'm addressing. You asked how someone can support a) b) and c) while claiming that d) e) and f) are more authoritarian in nature.

I explained the differences between the first set and the second set (with caveats, of course). I never said they were completely different, that one set restricted personal liberty and the other did not, or anything like that. What I said was that they are not the same. They are not identical.

They may be morally comparable in your moral framework, but there are real differences, and those real differences are sufficient justification for drawing a distinction to people with other moral frameworks.

First and foremost, it is the primary role of a government to impose some moral limitations on the actions of its people. Obvious examples include prohibition of murder and theft. Those certainly restrict personal liberty, yet we all accept them as necessary restrictions, because to allow them would be a greater threat to personal liberty.

Likewise, the examples you cite of liberal authoritarianism -- hate crime laws, affirmative action, and "fanatical political correctness" (whatever that means) -- do indeed restrict personal liberty. But like laws against murder, the goal of these restrictions is to avoid an even more egregious threat against personal liberty -- namely, the ability for all individuals to participate fully in society without oppression. The goal -- even if you disagree with the success rate -- is a net positive effect on personal liberties. You lose some, but you gain more.

The examples you cite of conservative authoritarianism (abortion aside, for the moment), on the other hand, hold no such benefit. There is no threat against personal liberty that can be stopped by prohibiting gay marriage. So from a purely libertarian point of view, there's no reason for that prohibition. You lose some personal liberty with no corresponding benefit. It's a net negative effect.

Again -- you may disagree with the efficacy of these efforts, or you may say that no positive gain in personal liberty is worth restricting personal liberty even the slightest bit -- but you cannot reasonably claim that there is no difference between prohibiting gay marriage and prohibiting hate crimes. In the context of personal liberties, there is a very big difference, and those of us who chose to recognize that difference deserve no scorn from you.


Powers &8^]

[ABraut]

Anti gay marriage and Affirmative Action laws violate the principle of free association. Hate crime laws violate free thought/speech principles. The violence should be punished, and the motives considered separately in the sentencing phase, not made a separate crime that presumes guilt of the original crime. From a libertarian point of view, there's no justification for any of these. I don't know where you got the idea that I said some of them are.

Saying that murder laws infringe on personal liberty is completely ridiculous. Unjustified homicide is the biggest violation of personal liberty possible. Violence, except in self defense, is not a right. Free association, free speech, and free thought are rights. This is false equivocation, to justify your belief that imposing your morality on others through government power is acceptable. It's only wrong when you disagree with the morality being imposed, to you.

It's clear that I'll never convince you otherwise. Your refusal to understand that political correctness can be carried too far by fanatics, is proof of that.

[ABraut]

I am curious about something. Why do you think government forced racial preferencing is a liberty and what liberties are preserved by hate crime laws that are not preserved by existing anti-violence laws?

[Powers]

Originally Posted by ABraut

Saying that murder laws infringe on personal liberty is completely ridiculous. Unjustified homicide is the biggest violation of personal liberty possible.

Wow. I admit I didn't expect that. It seems that your refusal to understand my point is actually ironic.

Here you are, accusing me of giving a pass to restrictions I agree with, while you not only give a pass to, but actually completely define away a restriction that you agree with.

Let me spell it out in terms as painfully clear as possible:

Murder laws say (simplified): "You will be punished more if you intentionally kill someone through active effort than if you incidentally kill someone through indirect negligence or carelessness." Hate crime laws say (simplified): "You will be punished more if you harm someone to demonstrate your scorn of a particular group than if you harm someone for other reasons."

Both laws punish the same act more severely depending on the state of the perpetrator's mind and the perpetrator's intent. To the extent that one is a restriction on personal liberty (the liberty of the perpetrator, that is), then the other one is as well.

Now, again, you can believe that one is necessary and the other is not, but you can't seriously claim that laws against murder are not restrictions on personal liberty.

Now, once you acknowledge that we all accept certain laws that restrict personal liberty, we can return to my point that some such laws provide a net gain in personal liberty, and others provide a net loss.


Powers &8^]

[ABraut]

No-one has the right to deny others of their personal liberty, except in immediate defense of self or others. Anti-violence/theft/vandalism laws punish actions that deny others of their personal liberties; these laws protect personal liberty. Hate crime laws punish specific thought and/or speech that, alone, do not infringe on anyone's personal liberty; these laws protect nothing that anti-violence/theft/vandalism laws do not already protect.

It's quite telling that you see protecting someone's liberty as an infringement on the liberty to infringe on the rights of others. It makes it so much easier to justify infringements on personal liberty that do not protect anyone's rights, so long as you deem it worthwhile.

[C K Dexter Haven]

MODERATOR INTERJECTION: I haven't looked at this thread in a while, but it does seem to have got fairly far afield. The column was about intelligence levels, and the specific issues that divide the country (and the political parties) are debated on these boards elsewhere (specifically, the Great Debates forum.) If you want to pursue any of those topics, please do so elsewhere.

So, please, back to the column?

[Powers]

Originally Posted by ABraut

Hate crime laws punish specific thought and/or speech that, alone, do not infringe on anyone's personal liberty

Just one point of order, for the benefit of lurkers, before withdrawing: The above statement is misleading.


Powers &8^]

[ABraut]

Democrats seem to have an elaborate system of self-deception that makes it difficult to take their claims of superior intelligence seriously. At the very least, most of their rhetoric is emotion based. They'll deny envy politics, in the same breath as they demonize the wealthy. Democrats appear to love substituting equality of outcomes for equal opportunity, rationalization for rational thought, and many other things. It's no wonder that they characterize this pattern of redefinition and substitution as intelligence.

[Fear Itself]

I will concede that red states are smarter than blue states, if only by their cleverness in extracting more federal dollars than they pay in taxes. Getting away with that while simultaneous railing against socialist pork barrel spending takes some serious brain power.

[ABraut]

Characterizing military and Border Patrol spending as "socialist pork barrel spending" or sometimes "welfare", is an example of redefinition. If you look into why those states have higher federal spending, you'll find that many of them have military bases, military suppliers, and/or a strong Border Patrol presence, or at least more of them in relation to their population. Western states have more miles of federal interstate in relation to population, as well.

Blue states' high cost of living further skews this metric. Residents of blue states tend to have higher incomes, even though they have less buying power. Since federal income taxes are not adjusted for cost of living, this increases the taxes that people, with effectively less money, must pay. Unadjusted income averages and poverty rates are some more deceptive measurements that Democrats are proud to believe in and brag about.

[Veneriable Slacks]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I have always wondered if there was a correlation between abuse as a child, and political leanings as an adult. Never seen any statistics on it though.

As I get older, I get less conservative and more radical. As a young teen, I was sexually abuse quite badly, but the wounds were self-inflicted. Not sure if this counts.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You were responsible for your own sexual abuse? I'd love to see you explain that one.

Originally Posted by ABraut

Blue states' high cost of living further skews this metric. Residents of blue states tend to have higher incomes, even though they have less buying power. Since federal income taxes are not adjusted for cost of living, this increases the taxes that people, with effectively less money, must pay. Unadjusted income averages and poverty rates are some more deceptive measurements that Democrats are proud to believe in and brag about.

What rubbish. State income taxes- which create the high level of services in blue states and the resulting cost of living- are credited against federal income taxes. State sales taxes are not.

[ABraut]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

State income taxes- which create the high level of services in blue states and the resulting cost of living- are credited against federal income taxes.

State income taxes are not credited against federal income taxes; they can be deducted, if you itemize. Sales tax also can be deducted, if you itemize.

State and Local Income Taxes

You can deduct state and local income taxes. However, you can elect to deduct state and local general sales taxes instead of state and local income taxes. See General Sales Taxes, later.

General Sales Taxes

You can elect to deduct state and local general sales taxes, instead of state and local income taxes, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040), line 5b. You can use either your actual expenses or the state and local sales tax tables to figure your sales tax deduction.

$30,000 salary in Austin, Tx:

The cost of living in San Jose, CA is 58.4% higher than in Austin, TX . Therefore, you would have to earn a salary of $47,514 to maintain your current standard of living.

Employers in San Jose, CA typically pay 28.7% more than employers in Austin, TX . Therefore, if you take the same type of job in the same type of company in San Jose, CA you are likely to earn $38,603 .

↓ $8,910 net change in disposable income

Do I really need to explain the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction, or that the federal income tax on $38,603 is more than the federal income tax on $30,000, even though it's worth $8,910 less?

Self-deception is not intelligence.